Introduction
Recently, the United Nations has announced that being allowed to have an internet connection is a fundamental human right since it enables communication, collaboration and learning at a vastly reduced cost and at greater efficiency. However, North Korea has been adamant in limiting the capacity of its population in being able to connect to the internet. This is, in part related to its stringent controls on the freedom of speech within its borders and how it facilitates control and obedience through the dissemination of ignorance and propaganda (Beck, 2011).
In this paper, an analysis will be conducted involving the current issue of North Korea’s limitation of its citizen’s right to the freedom of speech by preventing them from connecting to the internet and how this is an international politics issue since it propagates the bellicose rhetoric (i.e. threats directed against other countries) that North Korea is known for due to its status as an isolationist state (Gordy & Lee, 2009). It is the assumption of this paper that the limitations placed on internet connectivity within North Korea prevent notions related to peaceful international cooperation from disseminating among the citizens of the country which leads to the continued adverse relationship that North Korea has with other nations in the area of international politics.
Freedom of Speech, the Internet and its Influence on International politics
Within the past decade, the internet has become a source of communication and collaboration wherein people become capable of expressing views and opinions to a worldwide audience (Swaffield, 2009). It is a tool for free speech that has allowed the dissemination of ideas across cultures and continents, resulting in a much more informed global society. Becker (2005) notes that the internet has even become a tool which has helped to influence international politics due to the greater level of communication, interaction and connectivity that it provides (Becker, 2005). Through the internet, ideas involving democracy, free trade, peaceful relations and other positive notions have helped to influence international politics resulting in people and nations advocating for better and more peaceful relations as a direct result of ideas that they gained from the internet (Park, 2008).
One of the reasons why the internet has become a popular avenue of communication and collaboration has been the general consensus by viewers and listeners alike that the mass media is invariably biased, thus necessitating a better means of learning about global and local events (Alterman 2003). The necessity of access to unbiased information in order to enact positive change in a country can be seen in the heavily censored media of North Korea which limits the ability of its citizens to know more about the outside world. People in North Korea only know what the government sanctions them to know and, as a result, this has influenced its current standpoint in international politics (Parsons, 2012). With a citizenry that does not know any better, this has the effect of them acquiescing to the actions of their government as being correct, which has resulted in the various threats that the country has directed towards South Korea and the U.S. as well as its nuclear arms build-up (Jin Woong, 2008).
What is the Freedom of Speech, and why is it an International Politics Issue?
The concept of the freedom of speech is attributed to being a fundamental human right wherein people are given the ability to exchange ideas, information or concepts without fear of censorship or interference. In fact, it is a First Amendment right within the U.S., which prevents the government from establishing laws that infringe upon an individual’s inherent right to free speech and peaceful petition (David-West, 2011). Since the freedom of speech is considered a universal human right, its subsequent limitation and even outright prevention in the case of North Korea is a definite cause for concern since it means that millions of people with the country are prevented from voicing their thoughts in a manner that would help to enact positive social change. In fact, its prevention is viewed by many countries, especially those in Europe, as a human rights violation that should be immediately addressed since it in effect denies a right that everyone should have access to (Garine, 2013).
What must be understood is that from an international politics standpoint, silent acquiescence is at times considered the same as agreeing to the stance that a government has taken (Demick, 2004). In this regard, North Korea’s violation of the right of the freedom of speech is considered an international political issue since various countries do not want to acquiesce and thus validate North Korea’s actions against its own citizenry (Passariello, 2010). This shows that from an international politics perspective, North Korea’s preventive measures against access to the internet and the freedom of speech is a contentious issue in international politics due to the manner in which a vast majority of nations view such actions as being against the fundamental human rights that all people from all nations should have access to.
Why does the North Korean government limit online free speech/access to the internet?
What must be understood is that online free speech is a powerful tool for change; it can instigate profound social and political changes within a nation or even society as a whole which at times is detrimental towards prospective goals set by governments. For example, the revolution that occurred in Egypt which toppled the regime of Hosni Mubarak, as well as the uprising that brought down Mohammed Morsi, were caused by the power of online speech (i.e. via online social media) inciting the masses towards revolution (Kyungyon, 2014). In fact, the current changes happening in the Middle East today are a direct result of the ideas carried by the power of online speech from country to country resulting in revolutions which have toppled numerous incumbent government regimes.
Taking these factors into consideration, it becomes obvious as to why the North Korean government is trying its best to prevent access to the internet given that its systematic denial of rights has not endeared the government to its people (Kyungyon, 2014). While it may be true that North Korea has been successful in creating a “cult of personality” surrounding Kim Jong Un, the fact remains that should its prolific denial of rights in comparison to other countries be known to the North Korean people, it is obvious that some form of the uprising would occur. From this example and the fear that the North Korean government has placed on the possibility that its people would rebel against it as a result of the internet and free speech, it can be seen that the power of online free speech is truly profound, however, based on the example of Egypt and the Middle East, unmitigated online free speech can be a cause for concern for various governments since such methods of communication can and will result in actions which may disrupt various plans that the government has set into motion.
It is based on this that from an international politics standpoint, the denial of access to the internet and limitations on free speech is a contentious issue since governments around the world view it as a denial of fundamental human rights yet from the North Korean perspective, denying free speech and the internet to its people is a means of survival given the sheer magnitude of its crimes against the very populace it was meant to protect (Lefkowitz, 2012).
Imposed Restrictions and International Politics
One of the current issues in international politics in relation to North Korea’s imposed restrictions over freedom of speech within the context of the internet has been the acquiescence of the North Korean population towards the limitation of online activities due to a distinct lack of proper informed consent. Informed consent can be defined as an individual understanding the full implications and possible future consequences of an event, activity or trial that they are about to enter into. It is usually the case that informed consent is applied as an inherent right for participants when it comes to activities or actions that may have extenuating implications after an act has been performed.
This applies to situations wherein an individual’s opinions, thoughts or arguments could possibly be used against them in the future or even extends to activities wherein their physical or mental state may experience a certain degree of aversion to the acts that are performed on them (Hee-Yoon, 2013). Within the context of international politics, various countries have pointed out that there is a distinct lack of informed consent on the part of the North Korean people regarding their access to the internet. Many of them do not even know what the internet is or even how it works with access often being limited to the political elite. This, of course, is unacceptable to other countries that focus on allowing people to have the right to universal access to the internet instead of limiting it to a select few (Fish, 2009).
In the case of restrictions of online freedom of speech in North Korea, it should be noted that there is little in the way of sufficient informed consent when restrictions are implemented. For example, in the case of “the Great Internet Wall of China” (an epithet used to describe the barriers to internet activity that occur within the country), there was no informed consent involving the limitation of the right to freedom of speech online, rather, limitations were unilaterally implemented by the Chinese government due to “subversive elements towards societal harmony” that they correlate with unhindered online activity (Bush, 2007).
As a result, internet postings within the country’s localized intranet (i.e. referring to a networked connection that is limited to a particular area or region) are heavily regulated with information that presents the country or the government in a bad light being subject to deletion with the internet poster also being brought up on criminal charges should they be found. In the case of North Korea, even individuals with access to the internet are heavily monitored with their browsing history, emails and all aspects of their online activities being heavily monitored by the state. All of this is done in an attempt to ensure that foreign influences do not make their way into the mindset of the North Korean people (Rennack, 2005).
From an international politics perspective, the actions of North Korea are in violation of an individual’s right to privacy and, as such, should be stopped since all people should be given the right to be free in their own homes or online. Yet, for North Korea, this statement that is advocated by various countries is viewed as nothing more than adverse influences meant to “open the floodgates” so to speak so as to bring in western influences into the country and topple the regime from within.
When examining the limitations that have been put in place in North Korea, literary sources show that there is little in the way of sufficient informed consent on the part of the general public regarding the denial of an essential basic human freedom. What exists in its place is an arbitrary imposition of government will prevent people from making their displeasure at the government’s activities known which could result in mass action resulting in the destabilization of the state (Bossuet, 2009).
As mentioned earlier, such actions are viewed negatively in international politics since it would be the same as being in the same room as a husband that everyone knows is guilty of domestic abuse at home. From this example and others like it, one of the most common allegations levelled against North Korea by nongovernmental organizations and even countries like the U.S. is that the systematic denial of rights being done by the North Korean government to its own people must stop since it is both immoral and unethical.
While it may be true that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure the continued survival of the state, the fact remains that such an activity should not be done through a violation of basic human rights, yet, such violations are continuously being enacted on a daily basis on the activities of their citizens whereby the views they express are being limited to what the government deems as “acceptable” (Kirk, 2005).
International Politics and Unbiased News
The problem with the mass media in North Korea at present is that the news that is presented is usually edited, scripted and developed based on the needs of those in power. The views that are presented are often presented in such a way that they create a greater sense of appeal towards the general public which makes it less likely that incidents of outright anger at the government would occur. The propaganda model presents the notion that the content produced by mass media outlets is invariably aligned with the inherent interests of the political and economic elites in that the produced content supports the current sociological and ideological biases that this specific sector of the population espouses (Austin & Bryan Jr., 2004). Through such support, this, in turn, impacts the perception of viewers who rely on the media as a means of information regarding daily events around them (Xiangying, 2006).
From an international politics perspective, while it may be true that numerous states aside from North Korea conduct such practices, the fact remains that access to the internet helps people to separate fact from fiction and is thus an important element necessary for every person to have. Various states argue that when it comes to international politics, the will of a state’s people should be what is represented and not a viewpoint that was manufactured by a government in order to bring about irrational exuberance.
Irrational exuberance can be defined as the means of by which an individual moulds their behaviour on the actions of other people. It is defined as being “irrational” since some individuals tend to take things at face value resulting in their opinion being swayed by the media without necessarily considering the other side of the issue (Grzelczyk, 2007). This can be seen in the various forms of propaganda released by the North Korean government that does not allow its people to have alternative viewpoints presented to them.
Conclusion
Overall, it can be stated that the limitations placed on internet connectivity within North Korea prevent notions related to peaceful international cooperation from disseminating among the citizens of the country which leads to the continued adverse relationship that North Korea has with other nations in the area of international politics. Based on the facts presented, it can be seen that the freedom of speech online is an essential concept to society since it acts as a platform of not only the free exchange of information, ideas and concepts but also as an integral part of a checks and balances system between society and the government.
Reference List
Alterman, E. (2003). State of Disunion. Nation. p. 10. Web.
Austin, P., & Bryan Jr., J. A. (2004). My Freedom Trip: A Child’s Escape from North Korea (Book). Book Links, 13(4), 15. Web.
Beck, P. M. (2011). North Korea in 2010: Provocations and Succession. Asian Survey, 51(1), 33-40. Web.
Becker, J. (2005). Chapter 9: Kim Jong Il–The Reformer. Rogue Regime (pp. 190-208). Jasper Becker. Web.
Bush, G. W. (2007). Statement on North Korea Freedom Week. Weekly Compilation Of Presidential Documents, 43(17), 536. Web.
Bossuet, J. (2009). Inside North Korea. New Internationalist, (421), 4. Web.
David-West, A. (2011). Between Confucianism and Marxism-Leninism: Juche and the Case of Chŏng Tasan. Korean Studies, 3593-121. Web.
Demick, B. (2004). The Hidden Stories of North Korea. Nieman Reports, 58(3), 113-114. Web.
Fish, E. (2009). Is Internet Censorship Compatible with Democracy? Legal Restrictions of Online Speech in South Korea. Asia-Pacific Journal On Human Rights & The Law, 10(2), 43-96. Web.
Garine, P. (2013). An Anarchist in North Korea The Opposite of Freedom: A Journey to Pyongyang. Fifth Estate, 48(2), 13. Web.
Gordy, K., & Lee, J. E. (2009). Rogue Specters: Cuba and North Korea at the Limits of US Hegemony. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 34(3), 229-248. Web.
Grzelczyk, V. (2007). Of Roguery: How the United States’ Rhetoric Influences North Korea. Conference Papers — Midwestern Political Science Association, 1-33. Web.
Hee-Yoon, K. (2013). Food Insecurity in North Korea: Why South Korea Should Take Action on Food Aid. Peace & Conflict Monitor, 69-84. Web.
Jin Woong, K. (2008). The patriarchal state and women’s status in socialist North Korea. Graduate Journal Of Asia-Pacific Studies, 6(2), 55-70. Web.
Kirk, D. (2005). Welcome to North Korea. Forbes, 176(11), 176-178. Web.
Kyungyon, M. (2014). South Korean civil society organizations, human rights norms, and North Korea. Critical Asian Studies, 46(1), 65-89. Web.
Lefkowitz, J. P. (2012). Escaping from the North Korean Stalemate. Commentary, 134(5), 39-44. Web.
Park, H. (2008). The self-entrapment of rationality in dealing with North Korea. Korean Journal Of Defense Analysis (Routledge), 20(4), 353-365. Web.
Parsons, B. (2012). Escape from Camp 14: One Man’s Remarkable Odyssey from North Korea to Freedom in the West. Booklist, 108(12), 4. Web.
Passariello, C. (2010). Monuments to Freedom Aren’t Free, But North Korea Builds Cheap Ones. Wall Street Journal – Eastern Edition. pp. A1-A11. Web.
Rennack, D. E. (2005). North Korea: Economic Sanctions: RL31696. Congressional Research Service: Report, 1-17. Web.
Swaffield, B. C. (2009). ‘The world’s most isolated country’. Quill, 97(4), 35. Web.
Xiangying, H. (2006). Cross-cultural pragmatic differences in US and Chinese press conferences: the case of the North Korea nuclear crisis. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 237-257. Web.